Jump to content

Tadworth versus CRT.

onionbargee

By onionbargee
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted

 

It's the question of compliance with the law, as opposed to compliance with what C&RT wish was law, that's at the heart of this matter.

 

If you buy a Licence or PBC via the 'home mooring' option in the 1995 Act, then the 'law' simply requires that the mooring is 'available', whereas C&RT [unlawfully] insist that it must be used, . . . and waste huge amounts money in attempting to enforce that.

Completely agree as evidenced by the summing up in the Mayers case.

 

"............Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused".

 

As for C&RT incurring high costs, particularly when taking action against boat owners who have failed to obtain a current Licence or PBC, the responsibility for any high costs rests not with the boat's owner, but solely with C&RT as a direct result of misusing the powers they have under the 1983 and 1971 Acts, both of which provide for the recovery of unpaid Licence or PBC fees as a civil debt under Sections 5 and 7 respectively. This, together with a criminal prosecution in a Magistrates Court [ under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act, and the 1976 Byelaws] is the correct and appropriate action against licence-dodgers, but C&RT invariably choose the costly, futile and ultimately ineffective Section 8 [and 13] route instead.

Completely agree

However - whilst the above is 'true', it is also incumbent upon C&RT to ensure that the declared mooring is 'Available'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted

The law does not require you to make a declaration.

 

I know exactly what the law requires - CRT need to be satisfied. Currently, they do that by getting the boater to declare they understand the rules etc, and take it on trust for new boaters that they will be able to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul C Veteran II

Paul C

Posted
Posted (edited)

I would suggest the board is satisfied if no notices have been issued during the previous licence period.

 

I would suggest that its up to the board, to a certain extent, to decide what satisfies them. Of course there is a reasonableness check in there but I don't think its your place to tell CRT what to think or do. "No notices issued" is an incredibly crude measure of whether a boater has been compliant or not in a previous licence period and has many issues attached to it.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

I would suggest that its up to the board, to a certain extent, to decide what satisfies them. Of course there is a reasonableness check in there but I don't think its your place to tell CRT what to think or do. "No notices issued" is an incredibly crude measure of whether a boater has been compliant or not in a previous licence period and has many issues attached to it.

Why is it a crude measure?

 

A boat either has a BSC in force or not.

 

A boat has insurance or not.

 

A boat is, in fact, being used 'bona fide for navigation' or it is not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted

Why is it a crude measure?

 

A boat either has a BSC in force or not.

 

A boat has insurance or not.

 

A boat is, in fact, being used 'bona fide for navigation' or it is not.

 

 

 

A boat with a home mooring does not need to 'bona fide' navigate so how do you measure if a boat has a home mooring or it doesn't ? (answer - you need to confirm it exists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

Why is it a crude measure?

 

A boat either has a BSC in force or not.

 

A boat has insurance or not.

 

A boat is, in fact, being used 'bona fide for navigation' or it is not.

 

 

 

It has clearly escaped you that we are NOT talking about a boat "used bona fide for navigation throughout".

 

The issue postulated is "what if a boater says he has a home mooring, but it proves impossible to verify this before the date the licence is due to start"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

 

 

Is it safe to assume that by your ad hominem attack you feel you have lost the argument?

 

It would be a very unsafe assumption indeed.

 

I simply observe that there was a question asked of OB that he is avoiding answering, preferring instead to just launch into a different tack.

 

I am very happy to continue the original argument, but OB seems to want out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
valrene9600 Experienced

valrene9600

Posted
Posted

Why do CRT use the section 8 process instead of civil debt recovery ?

I guess getting a court order to remove a boat is quicker. Only so many places the boat can be. Civil debt can be very hard to recover if the debtor has nothing or makes the process hard by say not responding to bailiff s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan(nb Albert) Veteran

Allan(nb Albert)

Posted
Posted

 

It has clearly escaped you that we are NOT talking about a boat "used bona fide for navigation throughout".

 

The issue postulated is "what if a boater says he has a home mooring, but it proves impossible to verify this before the date the licence is due to start"

I was replying to the 'crude measure' post not your post.

 

Please keep up Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony Dunkley Influencer

Tony Dunkley

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess getting a court order to remove a boat is quicker. Only so many places the boat can be. Civil debt can be very hard to recover if the debtor has nothing or makes the process hard by say not responding to bailiff s.

 

You guess wrong, . . . . it's a process that dribbles on for many months, and furthermore, the Section 8 process, as laid down in statute, does NOT include any means or provisions with regard to recovering either alleged or proven debt.

 

The [Court] Orders obtainable via the Section 8 process do NOTHING more than confirm that C&RT have the right to remove a vessel from their waters, . . . . they DO NOT authorize C&RT to either take possession of the vessel, or to hold it as lien against any debt.

 

Potential problems that may be encountered in enforcing a debt judgment are no reason or excuse for attempting to collect a debt by illegal means, and C&RT are presently in severe difficulties for, amid a selection of other illegal/unlawful acts, having committed the criminal offence of doing precisely that in January 2015.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

 

I was replying to the 'crude measure' post not your post.

 

Please keep up Dave.

 

 

Unfortunately, the "crude measure" post actually came AFTER you went off on a tangent with

 

 

There is no legal requirement to have a home mooring. Thus there are no legal grounds to refuse or delay the issue of a license whilst CaRT checks.

 

 

We were talking about the fact that if a boater wishes to licence on the basis of having a home mooring, it is clearly necessary for CRT to verify that mooring.

 

The fact that you can licence without a home mooring (by satisfying the board that you will use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout) is a complete irrelevance to the point at hand.

 

A boater must satisfy the board of one thing or another. He (or she) can choose which. However, they can't say "I have a home mooring", and also say "but I don't have to have a home mooring"

 

If CRT cannot verify the mooring, then the boater would have to licence as a CCer, and satisfy them that he or she will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
valrene9600 Experienced

valrene9600

Posted
Posted

You guess wrong, . . . . it's a process that dribbles on for many months, and furthermore, the Section 8 process, as laid down in statute, does NOT include any means or provisions with regard to recovering either alleged or proven debt.

 

The [Court] Orders obtainable via the Section 8 process do NOTHING more than confirm that C&RT have the right to remove a vessel from their waters, . . . . they DO NOT authorize C&RT to either take possession of the vessel, or to hold it as lien against any debt.

 

Potential problems that may be encountered in enforcing a debt judgment are no reason or excuse for attempting to collect a debt by illegal means, and C&RT are presently in severe difficulties for, amid a selection of other illegal/unlawful acts, having committed the criminal offence of doing precisely that in January 2015.

So if sec 8 allows them to remove boat. What exactly are they allowed to do with the boat as you say they can't take possession or hold it as lien. What exactly does the court order say they can or have to do with the boat. There must be something about what the order allows after boat is removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.